Unhelpful report

The working group has not even framed issues properly

A working group’s report on autonomy for Jammu & Kashmir has sparked fresh debate on a contentious issue, debate that is likely to generate more heat than light. Arun Jaitley, a member of the group (one of five set up by the Prime Minister), has already condemned the report, asserting that the group has not met since September 2007, and has not approved the report that was handed over by its chairman (a retired Supreme Court judge) to the chief minister of the state last week. Within the Kashmir Valley, the separatists are known to be uninterested in the autonomy issue, being focused on a tripartite deal with Pakistan. Even the People’s Democratic Party (PDP), led by Mehbooba Mufti, would like to go beyond autonomy (which operates in a Centre-state context) and take in “self-rule” — which brings in an external dimension. However, the PDP has not defined the term, and made no written submissions to the working group. So the autonomy issue is essentially a creation of the National Conference, under whose leadership in 2000 the state assembly had passed a resolution demanding autonomy. The obvious question would be what purpose greater autonomy would serve if it leaves substantial sections of political opinion in the state dissatisfied.

 

The essence of the autonomy demand of recent years has been that the state should go back to the situation that prevailed in 1952, when the prime ministers of India and Jammu & Kashmir signed an agreement that gave effect to the terms of the state’s accession to India. This would mean that New Delhi would have control of only defence, external affairs and communications. The state would have (in addition to its own Constitution, flag, etc) its own prime minister, currency, and customs posts at borders. There would be no sharing of taxes, while the state government would decide who would represent the state in the Rajya Sabha. The Comptroller and Auditor General would have no jurisdiction, and the Supreme Court would have only appellate authority, with original jurisdiction on only Centre-state issues. Issues like reservation would not apply.

It should be obvious from this reading that such a definition of autonomy will find few takers in any government in New Delhi, and indeed with anyone outside the state. Most people will argue that far too much water has flowed under the bridge in the last 57 years. The National Conference itself has said in the past that the 1952 agreement would only be the starting point of discussions with the Centre, suggesting some flexibility. Unfortunately, the working group has not helped matters by suggesting in vague terms that autonomy can be examined, the demand for self-rule considered, and the terms of the debate set by the prime minister. This is of little or no help when it comes to defining the boundaries of debate, and seeks to fudge the wide gulf that exists between different strands of opinion in the state, and between the state and the rest of the country, on basic issues. Since the issues are fundamentally political, perhaps nothing more should have been expected of a “working group”.